Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 02, 2016, 02:35:29 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 660
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you feeling the BERN yet? on: March 26, 2016, 11:18:31 pm
People are making the mistake of thinking this is a World War I "trench warfare" style situation, because the 2008 Obama-Clinton primary was like that. The two candidates were so substantively similar, there wasn't much to campaign on that actually mattered. So you could predict how a state could vote just based on the percentage of demographics. Nate Silver originally exploited that opportunity to send his career into the stratosphere.

This tendency has unfortunately, been exacerbated by the first half of this year's primary. It again looks like trench warfare, but I'd argue that's illusory. It's only because Bernie Sanders started out so far behind, that when he makes a leap forward, and it shows up in certain demographics first, it looks like another demographic-based "trench warfare" primary. The underlying dynamic nature of the race is hidden.

That's why him winning PA, NJ and CA by big margins wouldn't be at all outlandish or surprising. When a candidate is winning, they're winning. John Kerry didn't need 50 primaries to beat Howard Dean. When Dean had his "scream", Kerry got the Big Mo and suddenly every state shifted huge to him. The same will happen when/if Bernie gets the Big Mo. Everything about his campaign suggests it's designed to give that to him.

In retrospect, it will be seen that Hillary's only hope was to have a 2008-style schedule, where almost all the big states like NY and CA voted in early February. Then Bernie's campaign wouldn't have had time to matter. DWS gave him too much time, and Hillary will have the DNC's schedule-makers to blame in part for her defeat. Her failure to shift sharply to the left like I suggested months ago is another part. The third part is unmentionable.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 10:42:18 pm
I have NY as a tie-- 51-49 Clinton win.

In any case, one more data point, for the "Beet needs xanax" crowd Tongue :

28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 09:55:31 pm
Okay- Since I am facing massive amounts of skepticism here, let us examine the race since Super Tuesday.

Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Louisiana - less than 1 week after ST. They basically go as you would expect. Sanders does very well in Kansas and Maine especially, he does a little better than expected in LA and a little worse in NE.

Michigan, Mississippi- about exactly 1 week after ST. MS, Sanders did not campaign in, goes as you would expect. Michigan, he pulls off a 22-point defiance of the polls, the biggest upset in primary polling history.

ST 2: There are five states at stake here, which Sanders was initially down by as much as 30 points. Florida, 70% of the votes were already cast. So he's scrambling to replicate his Michigan upset (the biggest in primary history) in 5 states, within just the space of 1 week. IMO, he pulled off about 2 1/2 (Illinois, North Carolina, and the 1/2 is Missouri). Florida was never on the map because of the early vote.

Since ST 2: 5-6 Sanders, 6-6 if you count election day voting in Arizona. Crucially, he has gone from underperforming Obama's 2008 performance in caucuses to overperforming in them. The man is a campaigning dynamo.

IceSpear- here is my state by state projection:
http://DemRace.com/?share=3wuCFNt1
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 09:37:03 pm
Huh? NH is a swing state. The last 3 Dem nominees have been good for NH though. It looks like this one will be, too.

IceSpear: As much as I believe Helen Purcell is an incompetent, they did have models based on previous elections that gave plausible estimates of turnout. Election day turnout in Maricopa clearly blew out those projections. We now have more contests with reports of ballots running out, than contests where ballots didn't run out.

And Hillary won by 17 points. I don't get your point.

A win based on the low turnout phase of the election (absentee ballots cast weeks earlier). Election day was like 10-15% of the total vote (which Sanders won by 20 points). But still, it was a primary.
30  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 09:28:18 pm
Huh? NH is a swing state. The last 3 Dem nominees have been good for NH though. It looks like this one will be, too.

IceSpear: As much as I believe Helen Purcell is an incompetent, they did have models based on previous elections that gave plausible estimates of turnout. Election day turnout in Maricopa clearly blew out those projections. We now have more contests with reports of ballots running out, than contests where ballots didn't run out.
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 09:23:20 pm
I made a thread saying I hoped her votes were counted at the convention. I never made a thread about how she should exit the race while maintaining her dignity. This is the first thread about this. This is her last move in serious public life so it might as well be good.

You can't really be delusional enough to think that Clinton will lose?

She's lost tonight. Have you seen the lines? The Democratic primary has gone from a low turnout race to a very, very high turnout race. This fundamentally changes everything.
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 09:22:27 pm
I'm the opposite of hysterical. I'm very calm. Which is how Clinton needs to be in her concession speech. We don't want this turning into a Pat Schroeder '87 style situation.
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 09:20:13 pm
I made a thread saying I hoped her votes were counted at the convention. I never made a thread about how she should exit the race while maintaining her dignity. This is the first thread about this. This is her last move in serious public life so it might as well be good.
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 09:11:20 pm
1. Give a speech thanking her supporters, and say something vague like she hopes we can continue to build on President Obama's achievements in the November election, but do not endorse Senator Sanders. Do not get too emotional during this speech.

2. Tell her supporters, friends and allies not to insult Senator Sanders.

3. Say that she's not closing her campaign until the Convention, and that she will insist that her delegates vote for her on the first ballot.

4. After this, retire from public life. If you speak at the convention, make your remarks very brief and focus on history and women's rights. Do not campaign for Senator Sanders like you did for Obama.
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Will Ashton Carter be indicted? on: March 26, 2016, 07:54:21 pm
What effect will this have on the presidential race?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/ash-carter-email-use-hillary-clinton/index.html
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie Sanders. on: March 26, 2016, 07:48:19 pm
Hey guys, have you seen that poster Beet? His predictions and freak outs are always wrong. He's totally irrational!
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Hillary finished? on: March 26, 2016, 06:18:33 pm
65% sure Clinton will not be the Dem nominee. Whether it's Sanders is another question, but it won't be Clinton.
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 05:31:22 pm
Soccer moms work too.
39  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 04:17:24 pm
Someone on twitter is claiming the 98% Sanders thing is a lie.

https://twitter.com/withmeyourheart/status/713826069296451584

1484 is the number of the precinct, they say. The actual result is 28-11. If people would stop lying and posting bad information, we would maybe be able to have reasonable analysis.
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 04:08:36 pm
They don't have the population, but they sure as hell have the delegates. Sanders just made up over 500,000 vote deficit from Florida today.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:58:19 pm
Only Grand Rapids and Austin weren't caucuses. But he he probably would have won Boise, Salt Lake City at least.
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:54:45 pm
I also love all the people on here who are like "Beet! Quit being unreasonable! Your candidate only has 2% of the vote in 1/17th of a major urban center! Stop freaking out!"
43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:53:37 pm
Clinton's support in Cowlitz county nearly cut in half from 2008 (40% to 23%). She's going to be just ahead in viability if what comes in so far holds... below viability if the 98% in West Seattle holds.
44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:39:26 pm
I am sick and tired of Sanders supporters underplaying their man's chances. If you thought it wouldn't change anything, you guys wouldn't be out there supporting him. He was supposed to win by 30 points. This is absurd.
45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:37:35 pm
You could probably find more Sanders opponents at a Sanders rally than the West Seattle Caucus... I'm sure some people just went for the lolz or to accompany friends.
46  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:34:45 pm
98% in a 17th of Seattle, though? The last time I saw 98% anywhere on Atlas for an election result was FDR's numbers from South Carolina in 1930s era elections.

Just to show you I'm not freaking out though, it heartens me to see that Clinton has actually won a precinct (called "Silver Spurs"):

https://twitter.com/katherinelong/status/713796204912443393
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:31:03 pm
Holy sh**t, Clinton may not even be viable.
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:29:30 pm
Alcon, who did you caucus for?
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:27:49 pm
So far, Clinton is doing about 10.5 points worse than in '08. That puts her at around 24%. This would be the first ever caucus where she did worse than in '08, except Nevada.
50  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 03:04:11 pm
Hesus, Sanders is going to be around 80% here.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 660


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines